English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

The dependency on local land and water resources for securing livelihoods is not a phenomenon of the past but a reality of today for many people worldwide. In regions at the edge of the ecumene natural resources used in a more extensive way, such as pasture lands, forests or water are often characterised as being used by groups and owned by entities such as a collective or the state. The advantages and disadvantages of such common property resources for the efficiency, equity, and sustainability of natural resource use patterns have been debated in legal and economic literatures for a long time.1) In his famous article “The tragedy of the commons”, HARDIN (1968) argued that common property will always be over-utilised and finally destroyed because the gain that individuals make by over-exploiting it will outweigh the loss they suffer as a result of its over-exploitation. He used the example of a herdsman, keeping his cattle on a common pasture. With every cow the herdsman added to his herds he would gain more than he lost: he would be one cow richer, while the community as a whole would bear the cost of the extra cow.2) Many economists and planners have referred to this example, which has been seen since then as a metaphor for the overor false utilisation of common property resources, and have suggested that the way to prevent this tragedy from unfolding is to privatise or nationalise common land. However, such statements are based on specific prejudices and confusions that relate to the non-observance of differences between common property regimes and free-for-all regimes. They see commons as property regimes that are open-access or everybody’s property (CIRIACY-WANTRUP a. BISHOP 1975, 715) where no one has the legal right to exclude anyone from using the resource. If such a resource gen316 Erdkunde Band 58/2004

Interdependencies and reciprocity of private and common property resources in the Central Karakorum